This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Green sea turtle is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Should this be renamed "Green sea turtle"? – Mipadi July 1, 2005 15:52 (UTC)
Outside birds (always caps), there is no hard and fast agreed convention. For example, cetaceans are capped, fish are not. Turtles appear to be capped, so I've gone with the flow. I'll put in a redirect though jimfbleak 1 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
Okay. I wasn't entirely sure about the guidelines, but go with what you think is most appropriate. – Mipadi July 1, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
what are the senses and how does it communicate with others of own kind and behave with others of own kinds b davis
Can you tell me how the green turtles digestives system works it is for a school project and i need it by the 18 of may also how many teeth do the green turtles have many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.245.12 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone like me with a high interest, but essentially zero knowledge, the following paragraph is confusing, particularly the first 4 sentences:
The species was originally described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Testudo mydas.[14] In 1868, Bocourt described a particular species of sea turtle as Chelonia agassizi and Chelonia agassizii.[15] This "species" was referred to as the black sea turtle.[16] These two separate species were then united in the same species, Chelonia mydas and were given subspecies status. C. mydas mydas referred to the originally described population while C. mydas agassizi referred to the Pacific population.[17][18] This subdivision was later determined to be invalid and all members of the species were then designated Chelonia mydas.[1] The oft-mentioned name C. agassizi remains an invalid junior synonym of C. mydas.
Did Bocourt think there was one or two species? The text says "one" species but provides two names. I know this probably all makes to someone who knows the subject matter - but it's got me beat. Can we re-word somehow? (a side issue is the the third sentence, which lists the word species in quotation marks, which I think is probably poor format. and does "black sea turtle" actually need to be bolded?). regards --Merbabu12:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should rewrite/expand that section. Essentially, Bocourt misspelled one and later researchers counted each iteration as a separate species. I'll see if I can trace the history of the name(s). Honestly, I don't like the bolding of "black sea turtle" either. I'm thinking of either adding a small section on the subspecies/separate species/genetic subpopulation "debate" once I dig up some sources. Shrumster 17:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
While most pics currently in the gallery are worthy enough to keep, it would be better if they were integrated into the article at an appropriate spot with concise but helpful captions. At the moment, they are kind of gratuitously dumped at the bottom, which is not really the point of wikipedia - flickr maybe. ;) kind regards --Merbabu12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that the article is actually under construction. (My bad, forgot to put a template.) If you check the edit history, I've stated that the images will be redistributed throughout the article when the revamp is done, which should be in a few days. Shrumster17:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry - i later saw your notes. It's probably OK to leave them there - although in the mean time, maybe we could temporarily put a couple of the pics into the main article. Ie, while it may indeed be underconstruction, it's in use daily. :). I'll have a look later - saturday maybe. Cheers. --Merbabu22:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I already killed the gallery and redistributed the pics throughout the article. Just realized...we need pics of green turtles from the Atlantic/Caribbean. All our C. mydas pics are of Pacific ones. Shrumster22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article says a lot of "is known to" or equivalent. Why should we write, for example, "the distinct Hawaiian subpopulation are known to nest at...". Why not just say "the distinct Hawaiian subpopulation are known to nest at..." There are arguably a few cases where "known" is OK - ie, we know they do "A" implying they could do "B", "C", "D" - but in this example, and others, it seems it isn't necessary.--Merbabu12:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how do green turtles eat and sleep as it is for a school project and i need it for the 18 of may many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.245.12 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'd like to compliment Shrumster on his mammoth efforts to improve this article (and his outstandingly helpful edit summaries - gold!). He may be sorry to hear, though, that I have removed a newly added section that did not have references. As this is newly added, I am sure the references are near to hand and the paragraphs can be re-added promptly with thorough referencing. Remember, a little bit of known quality, is better than a whole lot of of possible rubbish. sorry and thanks. --Merbabu13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Forgot to state. The section is actually a summary/lead paragraph of the entire section. I have a cool idea for a reference though. Lemme try it out. Shrumster17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I used the map as a reference for that info. I essentially just verbally described where the major nesting sites/range was from the occurrence of nesting sites from the map. Shrumster17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, got it from the top paragraph of page 10, although there are other "Very High" priority islands I didn't really mention yet. Raine Is. just stood out for green turtles. Shrumster17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not apparent that Green Turtle is overwhelmingly the correct term. Such a move should have been discussed first. --Merbabu13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry about that. Went with ghits and personal experience. Green turtle really is the more popular term, including among foreign sources (tortua verde, etc) but yeah should've discussed it first. Shrumster17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the discussion, but I've always heard "green sea turtle", not "green turtle". And google hits is a terrible indicator of usage. How many hits are personal websites, "Today, I went outside and found this little green turtle near the pond where I usually fish" type things? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has it at "green sea turtle" [1]. Although, we could just move it to honu. ;-) Any more thoughts? --Ali'i14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem with "I've heard." 'cause over here, I've always heard "green turtle." And no, I don't want it moved to pawikan. Anyway, I factored that in the GHit check and still came up with more hits on "green turtle"+"chelonia mydas" (119,000) vs "green sea turtle"+"chelonia mydas" (22,800). And to address that FWS, the NOAA has it as "green turtle." Shrumster16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, overhaul more-or-less done. Article is in good shape, just a few more tweaks and it's peer review->fac time! Whee! Shrumster22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, here's the deal with the images. First, the distribution image. It needs to be big enough that the map can be seen and that specific nesting grounds (red and yellow circles) can be picked out individually. A smaller range map will be made for the "just distribution" map for the infobox. As it is, I'm using Firefox with a 1024x768 resolution and the map *does not show*. Same thing with the other PCs around the house. That size must change. Per WP:MOS#Images,
"Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region"
It's a pretty detailed map, per the first one. Per the second one, the nesting grounds need to be seen within the context of the animal's distribution and the global map itself.
Second, the "breathing" pics. Only one pic really needs to show the turtle "breaking surface". Sure, they're great photos, but they're redundant. Sure, there may be space for both of them in the article but not one after the other. Also, pero WP:MOS on images, text shouldn't be sandwiched between two pics. That's what's happening right now. Oh yeah, and they both don't show either on my browser. Shrumster15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I centered the distribution map and enlarged it to 350px. If the size still bothers you, sorry but that's the minimum size that will show on my browser. It's centered so that the image pushes the next sections instead of inserting itself within the next section. Still don't know what to do with the "breathing" pics as they won't show on my browser no matter what I do to them. Shrumster15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one of the pics. While the pics are nice to look at, only one is really needed for that particular section. Both pics profess the same general idea and are redundant with each other. Actually, it's not really necessary to even state that the green turtle breathes air any more than the same fact should be in every single whale species article - the sea turtle article should be enough for general physiology of the marine turtles, just as the cetacea article does so for whales. Shrumster22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There's a link to gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com that's been used as a reference in this article. That domain is blacklisted because of major problems with spamming as well as attacks on and outing of a Wikipedia editor; here's a history:
That's why there have been problems with this link. I'm not sure how it's been added back; our software filters should block it, but I guess they don't always work. However, they did work today -- go figure.
--A. B.(talk)18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be renamed to "Chelonia mydas" because it is the currently-accepted scientific name. As for ALL organisms, common names like "Green_turtle" should be redirected to page named for the currently-accepted scientific name. philiptdotcom 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC) philiptdotcom21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since that the article states that it is the only species left, the current redirect from Chelonia is good enough. I would think, if anything, that the redirect could be changed to being a page where it links to the extenct species also. Cyborg999 16:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have some excellent footage of green turtles that I took in the Philippines last year. If people consider it would be a useful addition to the page and not just get deleted immediately by whomever is mainly taking care of this page, then send me a message on my talk page and I will upload it to the commons and add it. Thanks Antarctic-adventurer (talk)10:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In one paragraph the article claims that turtles have 3 habitats, then the next paragraph describes a fourth, for juveniles. At least I think it's a fourth. Perhaps the intent is that shallow waters and inshore lagoons are the same habitat. Help!Lfstevens (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Commercial farms such as the Cayman Turtle Farm in the West Indies once bred them for commercial sale. The farms held as many as 100,000 turtles at any one time. When the markets closed, the surviving farms became tourist attractions, supporting 11,000 turtles"
I find this statement misleading. Although the turtle farm no longer exports turtle meat to other countries, turtles are still bred for slaughter and sold to local restaurants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.252.241 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this para:
"In countries such as India and China the turtle is sacred, according to vastu, astrology and feng shui. Putting turtles into an aquarium or in one's house ensured the family's life would be long and eliminated negative energies from the house."
I see the history is that it was moved to Green Turtle without discussion and immediately opposed, although since that time it hasn't been corrected. The more scholarly sources used the full sea turtle, importantly the IUCN turtle specialist information only lists green sea turtle and no alternative(which it does for other turtles with multiple common names). I therefore don't feel Google hits is a good argument overruling it. Adding sea isn't going to confuse the reader but the more encyclopedic naming is fitting article naming guidelines of WP:CAPS, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Fauna name. Regards, SunCreator(talk)22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also see a lot of Chelonia mydas, Green sea turtleandGreen turtle in the text of the article. I think one (Green sea turtle) should be picked and used throughout.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using the species name, in part because it helps move us past this debate. The GT and GST can both redirect here, which allows us to achieve the twin goals of accuracy and accessibility. Lfstevens (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent: both common names should link here and the scientific name might be the best choice for use throughout the article. There's been some discussion here about how, when there is more than one accepted common name, the best thing to do may be to use the scientific name. We'll see how the article plays out though.NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific names is for when you do not have a reasonable common name. Using a scientific name for this article would be the worse outcome in my opinion and I'd strongly oppose, one reason being because Wikipedia is a general Encyclopedia. Another is the rule to use genus names for monotypic species, doesn't occur for the green sea turtle but would you want Painted turtle renamed to Chrysemys or loggerhead sea turtle renamed to Caretta. That would be an absolute failure in my view. The guidance at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Fauna name encourages the use of a common name, I agree with it. Regards, SunCreator(talk)17:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely shouldn't use it for the article title. Use throughout the article isn't ideal in my mind either, but if, after researching this little guy a bit further, it becomes apparent that Green turtle and Green sea turtle are equally acceptable and used common names, what else could we do? (As of right now, I'm thinking about changing everything to Green sea turtle because it seems to be the best answer, also to make things consistent).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This page was previously moved without discussion from Green sea turtle to Green turtle and immediately opposed. The previous move was favoured by one editor with reasoning 'ghits and personal experience'.
A closer look at ghits(Google hits) shows that results for green turtle soon turn to items not about the sea turtle the second item (for me) is a green turtle shirt provider who's logo is a land based turtle. Such things are just about a turtle that happens to be green in color.
While all occurrences of google hits for 'Green sea turtle' are included in 'Green turtle' meaning the latter will always return more results.
Another aspect based is that the Red-eared slider is sometimes called a 'green turtle' because it is green.
Reliable source do use both but my checking indicates a great occurrence of Green sea turtle in such sources as NYTimes use here, hereherehere.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wanted to raise here as I have done on the Talk:Galápagos_green_turtle page that I believe the other page should be merged into this one, leaving the other page as a redirect to this one. The two references cited as following proposals to use the name Chelonia mydas agassizzii do not support this proposal in fact the IUCN Checklist (TTWG, 2017) specifically points out the problems with recognising it. @Plantdrew and NessieVL: I am pinging both of you as you have made recent edits to the page, the only recent edits on this page were anti-vandalism. Also @Sun Creator: as you have also mentioned this issue. This is not yet a proposal for a merger just wanted to discuss it at first. I do recognise that this issue requires discussion as just doing it I believe would be beyond being bold. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Faendalimas: are surely more familiar with the status of agassizii than I am. I'm not finding any reliable, recent sources that support recognizing the subspecies. Please feel free to merge.
To reiterate what I said previously, you are commendably conscientous about checking with other editors about making changes. I don't think you would be excessively bold in executing a merge in this case without waiting for further input. You've documented your concerns/intentions in multiple places, and the situation in this case seems pretty clear cut to me. 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no reference to the disambiguation page for "Chelonian" at the top of the article (Chelonian (disambiguation)) even though this article is one of the four (!) articles to which that disambiguation page refers. I know there's a link to "Turtles" at the top, but as I said the disambiguation page for Chelonian links to four items, not two. So shouldn't there be a text and link "For other uses of Chelonia(n), see... etc." at the top?
P.S. Also, if you type in "Chelonian" in the search field, it directly goes to the "Turtles" (Testudines) article instead of to the disambiguation page that lists four possible meanings. In this case... why do we even have disambiguation pages if the Search field doesn't take you there? And does anyone know how to fix that? Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common name refers to the color of fat beneath its carapace?
As of this writing, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article makes this compound claim:
"The common name refers to the usually green fat found beneath its carapace, due to its diet strictly being seagrass, not to the color of its carapace, which is olive to black."
A citation is included for one part of the claim: That its diet is strictly seagrass. The citation does not back up the claim that the fat beneath the carapace is green (which it may well be, but if so it should be cited), and it certainly doesn't back up the claim that the common name is derived from the color of that fat, which is the part that I consider to be unlikely.
Looking through the edit history around 2008-2011, it seems like a series of minor tweaks may have changed the content from something like, "the common name refers to the green *skin* found beneath its carapace," plus, "the carapace is olive-brown to black," into what we have today.
In my view, the turtles are simply green. Certainly the shells may be more accurately described as "green-brown," "olive," or even simply "brown," but the creature as a whole comes off as green. I see no reason to doubt that this is the origin of the common name, and considering the lack of citation to the contrary I believe that this sentence should be removed, or perhaps rewritten to something totally innocuous like, "The common name refers to the greenish color of some specimens." Randalloveson (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this further it appears there are citations for this claim in older versions of the article, and that the way it was briefly worded in the late 2000's in this article, where skin was mentioned instead of fat, was preceded by the claim about the fat color in a different section of the article (with a now-dead citation). This investigation was made more difficult by the Internet Archive being down today. Randalloveson (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
Done @Dger, Plantdrew, and Sun Creator: cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)